Dependent Origination

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Dependent Origination

Post by Pam Seeback »

A concise and simple summary of the Buddha's teachings of dependent origination, from "In the Buddha's Words, an anthology of discourses from the Pali Canon", edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"Because of (causal realization) of (1) ignorance (avijja), lack of direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, we engage in wholesome and unwholesome activities of body, speech and mind; these are (2) volitional formations (sankhara), in other words, kamma. Volitional formations sustain consciousness from one life to the next and determine where it arises; in this way volitional formations condition (3) consciousness (vinnana). Along with consciousness, beginning from the moment of conception, comes (4) "name-and-form" (namarupa) the sentient organism with its physical form (rupa) and its sensitive and cognitive capacities (nama). The sentient organism is equipped with (5) six sense bases (salayatana), the five physical sense faculties and the mind as organ of cognition. The sense bases allow (6) contact (phassa) to occur between consciousness and its objects, and contact conditions (7) feeling (vedana). Called into play by feeing, (8) craving (tanha) arises, and when craving intensifies it gives rise to (9) clinging (upadana), tight attachment to the objects of desire through sensuality and wrong views. Impelled by our attachments, we again engage in volitional actions pregnant with (10) a new existence (bhava). At death, this potential for new existence is actualized in a new life beginning with (11) birth (jati) and ending in (12) aging-and-death (jaramarana)."

The above wisdom makes clear that (a) consciousness "precedes" and "follows" the formation of the sentient body and (b) that it is ignorance that causes this formation to occur. It is not that ignorance is error, but rather, that it is a principle or law present in the Mind of God or Life. In other words, it is purposed to be revealed. Purpose to revealed for Wisdom's "sake", Wisdom who gives the way to cause its cessation or reversal (patiloma).

Fearing "patiloma", the way of Wisdom is natural for it tugs and pulls at us to constantly let go of every Ignorant view we hold dear.

In the bible, the ignorance of dependent origination is represented by the appearance of the Lord (natural law) God who ignorantly forms Adam, then Eve, from the dust of the ground.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: It is not that ignorance is error, but rather, that it is a principle or law present in the Mind of God or Life.
Only names and signs.
Nevertheless, bingo, wisdom. Look closely at creation and you see only Self.

The fact is, people here disagree. They don't see it (reality, what we experience) as the absolute, essential nature, fundamental or primordial essence of what is.

It can never be understood while one thinks they are this small part of an 'external' reality.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by jupiviv »

Volitional formations sustain consciousness from one life to the next and determine where it arises;
And this is true based on what evidence?
Impelled by our attachments, we again engage in volitional actions pregnant with (10) a new existence (bhava). At death, this potential for new existence is actualized in a new life beginning with (11) birth (jati) and ending in (12) aging-and-death (jaramarana).
So all volitional actions are impelled by attachments? That invalidates the truth of the whole text. Since it was(presumably) the result of a volitional action, its truth is corrupted by whatever attachments its perpetrator suffered from.
movingalways wrote:(a) consciousness "precedes" and "follows" the formation of the sentient body and (b) that it is ignorance that causes this formation to occur.

I could try to interpret this wisely, but I can't be bothered since I'm reasonably certain that you think that ignorance literally creates sentient life.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker and jupiviv, there is the unborn and the born, which means the born unaware of the unborn retains some ignorance.

Jupiviv, please note the word 'again' re engaging in volitional actions. Also why mention your wise interpretations regarding sentience and ignorance if you keep them hidden?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Hi Movingalways,

What aspect of experience would be dependent if any?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Pam Seeback »

Hi Beingof1

"Experience" is one of those words that means different things to different minds. For me, experience is the pattern of causes and conditions that are intertwined in a complex web that cannot be "disassembled" to find any one cause or reason for its momentary/fleeting "feeling.". So, for me, experience is a wholly dependent consciousness, and being wholly dependent, causes the suffering of its perpetuation of unknown and everchanging causes and conditions.

One cannot know the reason for dependent origination, however, one can discover the causes and conditions that support its continuation, and in doing so, bring its darkness of the circling of relativity to an end. For those who cannot fathom the ending of dependent origination (the complex web of sentient interpretation) so as to "enter" the realm of the unborn, the uninterpreted, I put forth that they have not yet grasped the concept of The Infinite.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Experience is dependent or contingent on something, you are right.

Quieting the mind and going between all the words and images in the mind - a thought pops into existence. Something just came from nothing.

None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quieting the mind and going between all the words and images in the mind - a thought pops into existence. Something just came from nothing.
It did? So, the body disappeared, too? Or is that some sort of disconnected nothing?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Interacting with you in any form Leyla, isn't a good idea. For lack of better judgement...

For as long as you think the body is the source of 'consciousness'/thoughts, you will never get it.
movingalways wrote:The above wisdom makes clear that (a) consciousness "precedes" and "follows" the formation of the sentient body
This says, the body is not the source or foundation of consciousness. Why did you reply to Being but ignore this point made in the thread?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:Quieting the mind and going between all the words and images in the mind - a thought pops into existence. Something just came from nothing.
Not "nothing" but just something you cannot know fully. And as you wrote it pops into something you called existence. This existence needs knowns and unknowns to differentiate.
None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is.
You mean you didn't just say anything about the infinite and consciousness in that sentence? Or do you mean only you can launch conceptions and then quickly hide them?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla:

B1: Quieting the mind and going between all the words and images in the mind - a thought pops into existence. Something just came from nothing.


Leyla: It did? So, the body disappeared, too? Or is that some sort of disconnected nothing?
Linear thinking again?

Are there spaces between each word in a sentence?
How many spaces are there?

language and thought is binary code - as in zeros and ones.

It is known as zero point or the empty set. The empty set is infinite as it contains and intersects all other sets.

A circle has an infinite amount of points.
A square has four points.

So yes - no thing.



Diebert:
Beingof1 wrote:Quieting the mind and going between all the words and images in the mind - a thought pops into existence. Something just came from nothing.


Diebert; Not "nothing" but just something you cannot know fully. And as you wrote it pops into something you called existence. This existence needs knowns and unknowns to differentiate.
Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?

Is the totality a thing?

B1: None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is.


Diebert: You mean you didn't just say anything about the infinite and consciousness in that sentence?
You can refer to the infinite, that is not defining the infinite.In order to conceptualize anything, it must first be defined.

Brush up on the Tao again Diebert.
Or do you mean only you can launch conceptions and then quickly hide them?
This is called the logical fallacy known as - the false dilemma. It is easy to spot logical fallacies. They are almost always used in defense of dogma.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote: Something just came from nothing.
and
Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?
You tell me! You introduced the something and the nothing in the conversation!
You can refer to the infinite, that is not defining the infinite. In order to conceptualize anything, it must first be defined.
You're playing with words here, Being! Nobody ever claimed definitions are something else than references. And concepts arise when using these references in some coherent manner. They are fluent, incomplete and have limitations. What we can do however, and what I always do on this forum, is insist on quality when conceptualizing. Or even just originality, although one could argue that doesn't really exist either. To demonstrate one can fluently work with them without messing up. To point out when it happens.
Or do you mean only you can launch conceptions and then quickly hide them?
This is called the logical fallacy known as - the false dilemma. It is easy to spot logical fallacies. They are almost always used in defense of dogma.
It's not a false dilemma really but never mind that. It was just the strong possibility I saw that you think you are free to "refer" to something about the infinite while also saying none can conceptualize it. But you might not realize it doesn't have to be a fully fledged concept, theory and analysis to qualify for a work of the "conceptualizing mind". No concept in the world is complete in that sense, it's understood that they function as indirect and severely flawed indicators.

There's this Zen saying about the stick that hits you 60 times if you speak about Tao and hitting you 60 times when you don't. That's not solvable by clever games, you know.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert:
Beingof1 wrote: Something just came from nothing.
and

Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?


D-man:You tell me! You introduced the something and the nothing in the conversation!
Diebert said:
Not "nothing" but just something you cannot know fully.
By all means; tell us what this "something" is that you are absolutely positive is not nothing.

B1:None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is.


Diebert: You mean you didn't just say anything about the infinite and consciousness in that sentence?


B1:You can refer to the infinite, that is not defining the infinite. In order to conceptualize anything, it must first be defined.


Diebert; You're playing with words here, Being! Nobody ever claimed definitions are something else than references.
You sure it is me?

Lets take a second look at this line of questioning and tell me what you see.

It is obvious D-man.

Look - look again.

And concepts arise when using these references in some coherent manner. They are fluent, incomplete and have limitations.
Exactly; the very definition of infinite means to have no limits, to be complete and is absolutely everything.It is said to be defined by having no limits but that only means it is beyond definition. In order to define any thing, you must set a boundary. Once again, infinite means to be boundless.

Take any other concept, any one you choose, they all, without exception, have a limit or boundary.

The boundaries and limits may be conceptual but in order to hold a concept, you must have limits and boundaries.

No word games here.
What we can do however, and what I always do on this forum, is insist on quality when conceptualizing.
You are disregarding what you yourself want to insist on for this forum.

To claim the infinite can be conceptualized is absurd and illogical. Equally true, to claim consciousness can be conceptualized is also not possible.

It is like playing a rugby game and telling the players to score a goal at the end of the universe.It is like telling someone to touch the sky. It is like asking how much space is between the planets and stars in the universe.

Show us a concept of the infinite Diebert. The closest concept I know of is zero and that cannot be conceptualized only alluded to or identified. It is like saying "I remember a time when I was not."
Or even just originality, although one could argue that doesn't really exist either. To demonstrate one can fluently work with them without messing up. To point out when it happens.
Good, lets do that.

D-man Or do you mean only you can launch conceptions and then quickly hide them?


B1: This is called the logical fallacy known as - the false dilemma. It is easy to spot logical fallacies. They are almost always used in defense of dogma.


D-man; It's not a false dilemma really but never mind that. It was just the strong possibility I saw that you think you are free to "refer" to something about the infinite while also saying none can conceptualize it.
You can identify the infinite, it is subject to the law of identity. It cannot be conceptualized and therefore undefined as it has no boundries. It is like saying "when you get the full equation for the square root of pi, you have conceptualized the infinite. let me know when you are done."

But you might not realize it doesn't have to be a fully fledged concept, theory and analysis to qualify for a work of the "conceptualizing mind". No concept in the world is complete in that sense, it's understood that they function as indirect and severely flawed indicators.
Lets do a thought experiment:
Throw a ball at the edge of the universe.
Did it bounce back or keep going?

You are confusing identity with definition. The infinite can be identified or we could not say anything at all about it.

The infinite is not subject to being only what it can be, It is not made of the sum of its parts, is not in the causal chain, It has transcended all limits, It has exceeded all boundaries, It is expanding all borders, It is all things at all places and all times, It is everything that can possibly be in all possible worlds. The infinite seeks out impossibilities to become possibilities because it is infinite.

An infinite state is in flux - not a stagnation of finite application.Wait a second and the infinite will be more then what could possibly be in all possible worlds.

The truth is not a concept brother Diebert. It is not a multiple choice quiz. It is not holding all the right ideas in your mind.

The Truth is alive and is life.
There's this Zen saying about the stick that hits you 60 times if you speak about Tao and hitting you 60 times when you don't. That's not solvable by clever games, you know.
After 120 whacks - I feel like a baseball.
jare88
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by jare88 »

I think the conceptualization of the infinite may lie in our sense of temporality. There is that trance feeling people get in meditation where things are "timeless."
Does that make a moment in time infinitely small, or infinitely huge?
How do you get from nothing to something? 0 to 1? From experiencing one moment in time to the next? As I write this I consider the possibility of a scientific explanation, at least as far as humans and other animals are concerned, in the rate of neurons firing.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Leyla Shen »

B1 wrote:
Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?

Is the totality a thing?
Sure, if you step out of the limitations of Buddhist philosophy and into structuralism...

Can you do that?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jare88 wrote:I think the conceptualization of the infinite may lie in our sense of temporality. There is that trance feeling people get in meditation where things are "timeless."
Does that make a moment in time infinitely small, or infinitely huge?
How do you get from nothing to something? 0 to 1? From experiencing one moment in time to the next? As I write this I consider the possibility of a scientific explanation, at least as far as humans and other animals are concerned, in the rate of neurons firing.
Yeah, good questions. Reminds me of the old medieval measurement: one Moment = 90 seconds, which is 1/40th of an hour. Bottom line is that we need to make some estimations to work with which are only functional in a certain context. Even time-timeless, finite-infinite are such distinctions. They "work" when it creates some conceptual space for activity to occur in?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:By all means; tell us what this "something" is that you are absolutely positive is not nothing.
After you sir! Tell us what is this "nothing" that you are absolutely positive is nothing ("something just came from nothing").

And concepts arise when using these references in some coherent manner. They are fluent, incomplete and have limitations.
Exactly; the very definition of infinite means to have no limits, to be complete and is absolutely everything.It is said to be defined by having no limits but that only means it is beyond definition. In order to define any thing, you must set a boundary. Once again, infinite means to be boundless.
So, do we have a definition here or not? Perhaps since it's boundless, it cannot be limited by being "undefinable". That would be a limitation! Meaning it can be defined in what might be unlimited ways. But not all ways are equal.
Take any other concept, any one you choose, they all, without exception, have a limit or boundary.
That's because we have decided to call a limited and bound collection of thoughts: concept. It's just what they are, this very act of pulling together some things and leaving out others. Ok?

All concepts are like that really. By definition, without exception.
To claim the infinite can be conceptualized is absurd and illogical. Equally true, to claim consciousness can be conceptualized is also not possible.
And yet you are continuing to describe it. Adding qualifications like "cannot be this" and "except that". And then you turn around and claim " I didn't do anything conceptual here". So what is needed to make you realize you just did? You just think your descriptions are not really concepts but actually capturing the infinite in some other way? That is wrong thinking.
Show us a concept of the infinite Diebert. The closest concept I know of is zero and that cannot be conceptualized only alluded to or identified. It is like saying "I remember a time when I was not."
Thanks for the concept, Being! Nothing wrong with your concept but I prefer the number "one" myself. It has other advantages. They are just concepts Being. Something is wrong with them, something might be right about them.
The truth is not a concept brother Diebert. It is not a multiple choice quiz. It is not holding all the right ideas in your mind. The Truth is alive and is life.
Says who? The point here was about speaking truth. Not the same as whatever it is referring to.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla:
B1: Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?

Is the totality a thing?


Leyla: Sure, if you step out of the limitations of Buddhist philosophy and into structuralism...

Can you do that?
One trick pony?

Thing - defined by Webster in the context of structuralism.

a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
c : a spatial entity
d : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being

As much as you want to shove the totality into a box, it just does not seem to fit there. Its just to big.

Do you think God is embarrassed about this? Maybe he wants to take it all back and start over with structuralism.




Diebert:
After you sir! Tell us what is this "nothing" that you are absolutely positive is nothing ("something just came from nothing").
I already did in my answer to Leyla.

Not a thing.

Your turn.
Diebert: And concepts arise when using these references in some coherent manner. They are fluent, incomplete and have limitations.

B1: Exactly; the very definition of infinite means to have no limits, to be complete and is absolutely everything.It is said to be defined by having no limits but that only means it is beyond definition. In order to define any thing, you must set a boundary. Once again, infinite means to be boundless.

Diebert: So, do we have a definition here or not?
I thought I answered that like a gazillion times already.
Perhaps since it's boundless, it cannot be limited by being "undefinable". That would be a limitation!
How is undefined a limitation? Do tell.
Meaning it can be defined in what might be unlimited ways. But not all ways are equal.
Infinity can be defined?

You have just won a world renown trip to scientific/mathematics hall of fame.

1/0 = the undefined - but not to you?
B1: Take any other concept, any one you choose, they all, without exception, have a limit or boundary.


Diebert; That's because we have decided to call a limited and bound collection of thoughts: concept. It's just what they are, this very act of pulling together some things and leaving out others. Ok?

All concepts are like that really. By definition, without exception.
You realize you just made my point?

You will probably continue to debate with yourself though.Do you ever wonder why you do that?

B1: To claim the infinite can be conceptualized is absurd and illogical. Equally true, to claim consciousness can be conceptualized is also not possible.


Diebert: And yet you are continuing to describe it. Adding qualifications like "cannot be this" and "except that". And then you turn around and claim " I didn't do anything conceptual here". So what is needed to make you realize you just did? You just think your descriptions are not really concepts but actually capturing the infinite in some other way? That is wrong thinking.
You are not keeping up and you think its me.The reason you are not keeping up is because you have dogma to defend.

The infinite can be *identified* it cannot be defined.

The moment you attempt to define the infinite, it just got bigger than your definition.

It is like saying "I am a missing person."
B1:Show us a concept of the infinite Diebert. The closest concept I know of is zero and that cannot be conceptualized only alluded to or identified. It is like saying "I remember a time when I was not."


Thanks for the concept, Being! Nothing wrong with your concept but I prefer the number "one" myself. It has other advantages. They are just concepts Being. Something is wrong with them, something might be right about them.
You are not keeping up again.

This is becoming tedious.

Zero is not a concept - it is a placeholder for the undefined.

How does the number 1 define the infinite?
B1:The truth is not a concept brother Diebert. It is not a multiple choice quiz. It is not holding all the right ideas in your mind. The Truth is alive and is life.


Diebert: Says who?
Says me. And if you were wise, you would agree.
The point here was about speaking truth. Not the same as whatever it is referring to.
You do like to continue to muddy the waters and you mistake that for wisdom.

Clarity and illumination does not hide or shroud itself in double-speak. Illumination is as clear as what is self evident.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:
Tell us what is this "nothing" that you are absolutely positive is nothing ("something just came from nothing").
Not a thing.
Then a thing is the opposite of that?

How is undefined a limitation? Do tell.
Because it's limited in terms of being defined like "things". If it really was limitless it should be definable and undefinable, both and neither.
Infinity can be defined?
You can speak of it, you are speaking about the infinite using terms which are defined in certain ways. Perhaps you're making it too complex by demanding undefinability of the topic you started to discuss?
You realize you just made my point?
But you don't get mine: that you are not following through on your own points. It's not disagreement I have with what you say but how you are not consistent with it.
The infinite can be *identified* it cannot be defined.
I'm not even going to touch that one!
Zero is not a concept - it is a placeholder for the undefined.
You're still using it conceptual, my friend. All we have are "placeholders" even your holy, precious descriptions of holy, precious experiences. Illuminate your own words with attention and try to see if some can be improved.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Pam Seeback »

Beingof1 wrote: None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is.
One indeed can grasp the concept of the infinite, not with their mind of empirical analysis of course, but with their spiritual intuition or "ears" of Wisdom.

Jesus came into the world for the very purpose of revealing, by way of Word/concept, the nature of his Father's Mind and how to come to receive the vision of His Mind, concepts such as "I and the Father are One", "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth", "the light of the body is the eye: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light", "I am the way, the truth and the life."

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Leyla Shen »

B1 wrote:
One trick pony?
Yes, it's rather looking like you are:
As much as you want to shove the totality into a box, it just does not seem to fit there. Its just to big.

Do you think God is embarrassed about this?
Who?

Tell me, how does "He" hold your world together?
Thing - defined by Webster in the context of structuralism.

a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
c : a spatial entity
d : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
And that little demonstration is to structuralism as a sound bite is to speech...
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:One indeed can grasp the concept of the infinite, not with their mind of empirical analysis of course, but with their spiritual intuition or "ears" of Wisdom.
Lets just call "grasping concepts" the basic activity of mind. And lets just call this mind in its most promising state intuitive and wise. There, brought it down to Earth for you, Pam.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Beingof1 »

Movingalways:
One indeed can grasp the concept of the infinite, not with their mind of empirical analysis of course, but with their spiritual intuition or "ears" of Wisdom.
The point I was making was; the infinite is more than the mind can conceive. To say, for example;one can grasp the universe is to say one knows each and every particles position and velocity in the universe.This is contained in consciousness but that is beyond the mind.

We can experience the infinite and I think this is what you are trying to say.

When thought is absent - the infinite field is manifest.
I AM
I am the universe
I am reality
I am life



Leyla:
One trick pony?



Yes, it's rather looking like you are:
Addition and subtraction is required for advanced math for a very good reason.


As much as you want to shove the totality into a box, it just does not seem to fit there. Its just to big.
Do you think God is embarrassed about this?Maybe he wants to take it all back and start over with structuralism.



Who?

Tell me, how does "He" hold your world together?
Chastising me for social relevance is an art form you have acquired.

It was a joke Leyla - lighten up, would ya?

Don`t make me jump in a rowboat, cross the Pacific, just to confront this razor tounged Turkish woman that I will just end up arm wrestling.

Do you know karate?
Thing - defined by Webster in the context of structuralism.

a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
c : a spatial entity
d : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being



And that little demonstration is to structuralism as a sound bite is to speech...
Then make an argument, after all, its yours. I was just trying to find common ground by looking up the definition in context.

Very good strategy; If you can't win, make your opponent lose.

Have you ever considered a career in politics? They literally would not know what to do with you.



Diebert:
Then a thing is the opposite of that?
Yes - the opposite of thing is - no thing.
B1: How is undefined a limitation(for infinite)? Do tell.


D-man: Because it's limited in terms of being defined like "things".
This does not make any sense, could you explain?
If it really was limitless it should be definable and undefinable, both and neither.
How so?
B1: Infinity can be defined?


D-man: You can speak of it, you are speaking about the infinite using terms which are defined in certain ways. Perhaps you're making it too complex by demanding undefinability of the topic you started to discuss?
Yes, a little simple subject like the infinite should be taught in pre-school.

I already said, multiple times, you can use the law of identity to refer to the infinite. It does not fit in the law of identity either because it is not a thing as in A=A. It is everything that is not -A and including A.

The infinite is not a logical construct because it transcends the law of thought and defies two of the laws of thought.

1) The Law of Identity:
A is A or anything is itself.

2) The Law of Excluded Middle:
Anything is either A or ~ A

3) The Law of Contradiction:
Nothing can be both A and ~A.

The infinite only meets the criteria of #3 and that is why zero works as an identifier or we could not refer to it at all.

If you think the infinite can be a conceptual construct - then lets see the syllogism that you can point to.The infinite nor consciousness appear in space or time so you have your work cut out.
B1:The infinite can be *identified* it cannot be defined.


Diebert; I'm not even going to touch that one!
It may be treated as a number but it is a higher number than can be counted because it is countably infinite. The best you can do, no matter the numbers are ordinal or cardinal, is map the sequence string between two points.

In order to do that you need a point - as in a zero. There it is again, just cannot seem to escape it - that empty set thingy as a placeholder.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:
It's limited in terms of being defined like "things". If it really was limitless it should be definable and undefinable, both and neither.
This does not make any sense, could you explain?
To impose a limitation on something means you restrict or confine it to, well, to any qualification or containment. When you describe something as "undefinable" you say it's impossible to define. That it can not be defined in any way. So if I want to try to define it, to make some sense, I am restricted and confined to not doing so because I'm limited to saying it's undefinable.

But absolute limitlessness would include and transcend limitations. It would mean one can certainly make definitions and yet at the same time the subject will keep escaping those definitions. But this is with everything in reality. Never is something completely and fully captured by some definition or concept. It's captured just to create enough space to get some work done, inside some context. When insights develop, another picture emerges and perhaps other ways of defining or conceptualizing arise. It becomes a fluent and flexible thing. Not a free for all but certainly with endless possibilities. Do I get my point through here? I hope so.
I already said, multiple times, you can use the law of identity to refer to the infinite. It does not fit in the law of identity either because it is not a thing as in A=A. It is everything that is not -A and including A.
So it refers and it doesn't really refer? But why not say A=B? Because expression does matter and the conceptual part has its own demands for consistency and coherence, like all concepts.
If you think the infinite can be a conceptual construct - then lets see the syllogism that you can point to.The infinite nor consciousness appear in space or time so you have your work cut out.
Where did I state that the "infinite can be a conceptual construct"? My point was that all we're doing here is exchanging conceptual constructs, no matter the subject. And that there's only the issue of quality left. It's time we get on the same page at least before we can even speak of agreement and disagreement.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Dependent Origination

Post by Leyla Shen »

B1 wrote:
The infinite is not a logical construct because it transcends the law of thought and defies two of the laws of thought.

1) The Law of Identity:
A is A or anything is itself.

2) The Law of Excluded Middle:
Anything is either A or ~ A

3) The Law of Contradiction:
Nothing can be both A and ~A.

The infinite only meets the criteria of #3 and that is why zero works as an identifier or we could not refer to it at all.
Nope, I don't get it. I've tried, and its not the 18-year-old Chivas Regal—that wore off about an hour ago, I reckon.

What are you saying!? Clearly nothing logical, right?

How can a proposition meet one of the three laws of thought without meeting the other two when they are correlates?
Between Suicides
Locked